Monsanto et al. Mislead Public Using Every Trick in the Book

With a debate raging over whether genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are safe, it seems reasonable that people would look toward the media, academia and scientists for answers. But major biotech companies like Monsanto, Bayer and Dow know this, too, and seem to be engaged in an effort to rig the results.

GMOs are produced by recombinant DNA technology. How it works sounds like science fiction, or something out of a horror movie. Imagine: Genes from an insecticide are inserted into the genome of the corn plant, thus producing a crop that resists insects. The insecticide is made from the protein of a bacteria closely related to anthrax, and it works by making the guts of the insect explode.

Critics, such as the Center for Food Safety, say that GMOs are insufficiently tested and may be dangerous. There are high-profile campaigns in three Western states to label GMOs as such, so that consumers can know what they are buying and eating. At the same time, food businesses have been scrambling to ban, or remove, the warning labels.

Are GMOs dangerous? For answers to such questions, we normally turn to reputable scientists associated with reputable universities. Surely we can trust them to give us objective information. Or can we? It turns out that biotech heavyweights like Monsanto, Bayer et al have been paying reputable people from reputable institutions to swing the debate in their favor.

A treasure trove of emails — obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests by a US non-profit and acquired by The New York Times —reveals that academia is infested with professors who are paid to vigorously promote GMOs on behalf of the biotech industry, which also includes trade associations such as CropLife America.

And some academics have even sabotaged the efforts of others to publish facts that contradict the claims of these professorial shills for GMOs.

“We are all bad-ass shills for the truth. It’s a pleasure shilling with you.” Or, as Folta himself put it: “I’m glad to sign on to whatever you like, or write whatever you like.”

But to learn how deep the problem goes, you would need to find the links to those emails, and dig through layer upon layer of them.

Of course, if you don’t have time for that, you always can rely on The New York Times to give you the low-down on Big Food’s propaganda efforts. Or can you? The Times — whose motto is “All The News That’s Fit to Print” — has published a curiously tame and seriously incomplete version of what is buried in those emails.

At first sight, the Lipton article is impressive. He exposes a number of individuals from various institutions, but focuses mainly on Kevin Folta — Chair of the Department of Horticulture at the University of Florida.

Folta secretly took expenses, and $25,000 of unrestricted money, from Monsanto to promote GMO crops. And Lipton reports a damning quote showing Folta’s close relationship with Monsanto, something he had previously denied:

“I am grateful for this opportunity and promise a solid return on the investment,” Folta wrote after receiving the $25,000 check.

Lipton also mentions Folta’s participation, with other academics, in a website run by the biotech industry, GMO Answers. A PR firm hired by the industry provided questions from the public, such as, “Do GMOs cause cancer?”

But, as Lipton reports, Ketchum, the PR firm, did more than provide the questions — it also provided answers which Folta used nearly verbatim.

NO SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT?

In the scientific community, none of this was exactly news. The basic facts had already been revealed in a leading scientific journal, Nature, by Keith Kloor, who also had access to the emails.

It is odd that this was first reported by Kloor, a pro-biotech journalist who works for a pro-biotech publisher. Or perhaps not so odd, given that Kloor went on to state that the emails “do not suggest scientific misconduct or wrongdoing by Folta” — even after Folta was on record as denying he had received any biotech funding.

Not disclosing such funding is definitely considered scientific misconduct. So why did Kloor rush to exonerate him?

Was Kloor’s story a pre-emptive strike to defuse the issue of wider biotech corruption of academia? Was Lipton’s?

DAMAGE CONTROL?

The damning emails originally came to light earlier this year, when a newly-formed activist group called US Right to Know (USRTK) set in motion Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests directed at 14 (now 43) prominent public-university scientists. These academics were suspected of working with (and being paid by) the biotech industry and/or its PR intermediaries. (The emails released via FOIA — reputedly totalling in the tens of thousands — are the source of Kloor’s and Lipton’s highly selective reporting.)

One might think that if these 43 scientists had nothing to hide, such a request would have generated little attention outside academia.

Yep.

For the last year + every Neo / Lib Con media pundit, Con artist etc… were using these very photos as proof that N. Korea was still at the forefront of the “axis of evil”. S. Korea was shaken down a bit more, as was Asia Corp. (into GlobalCorp) These same TV / Webnews experts will be back next week with a whole new line of crap. At what point does their credibility get challenged by its adoring public?

SEOUL (Reuters) – Photographs showing a North Korean missile launched from a submarine were manipulated by state propagandists and the country may be years away from developing such technology, analysts and a top U.S. military official said on Tuesday.

North Korea, sanctioned by the United States and United Nations for its missile and nuclear tests, said on May 9 it had successfully conducted an underwater test-fire of a submarine-launched ballistic missile which, if true, would indicate progress in its pursuit of missile-equipped submarines.

On Wednesday, North Korea warned the United States not to challenge its sovereign right to boost military deterrence and boasted of its ability to miniaturize nuclear warheads, a claim it has made before and which has been widely questioned by experts and never verified.

But North Korea is still “many years” from developing submarine-launched ballistic missiles, U.S. Admiral James Winnefeld told an audience at the Centre for Strategic & International Studies in Washington on Tuesday.

“They have not gotten as far as their clever video editors and spinmeisters would have us believe,” said Winnefeld, who is vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Analysis seen by Reuters from German aerospace engineers Markus Schiller and Robert Schmucker of Schmucker Technologie appeared to support Winnefeld’s statement.

The Munich-based pair said photos of the launch were “strongly modified”, including reflections of the missile exhaust flame in the water which did not line up with the missile itself.

North Korea, which regularly threatens to destroy the United States (if attacked by the US – ), had a record of offering faked proof to claim advances in missile technology, Schiller and Schmucker said, such as poorly built mockups of missiles on display at military parades in 2012 and 2013.

The pair agreed with analysis posted by experts on the websites 38north.org and armscontrolwonk.com that the missile was likely launched from a specially designed submerged barge, and not from a submarine (or from the USS Photoshop)

Success (cough): North Korean officials claim this missile proves they can launch rockets from submarines – which, if true, is a worrying development, security experts have said

A photo on state television showed a missile high in the sky leaving a trail of white smoke, whereas other photos from state media showed no white smoke, suggesting the two photos were of different missiles with different propulsion systems, Schiller and Schmucker said.

South Korea stood by its position that the photos appeared authentic. “We haven’t changed our stance that the rocket was fired from a submarine and flew about 150 meters out of the water,” a South Korean military official said.

The North’s National Defence Commission, the main ruling body headed by leader Kim Jong Un, said on Wednesday the submarine-based missile launch was “yet a higher level of accomplishment in the development of strategic attack means”.

A group of military veterans is taking aim at U.S. drone strikes overseas with graphic TV ads directly asking Air Force pilots to stop flying the unmanned aircraft, calling the operations immoral and illegal.

The ads are the first commercials opposing U.S. drone operations ever shown on American TV, according to sponsors, which include the Veterans Democratic Club of Sacramento County and the Sacramento chapter of Veterans for Peace. The campaign is spearheaded by an activist website, KnowDrones.com.

The commercials are airing this month on Comcast in Northern California communities near Beale Air Force Base, which is home to Golden Hawk reconnaissance drones. Pilots at Beale remotely fly the spy drones over areas believed to be controlled by terrorists in foreign countries and pinpoint human targets for attack by armed Predator and Reaper drones.

The two 15-second spots show images from a drone operations video screen, an explosion and civilians searching through rubble after a drone attack. On-screen messages read “Drone killings violate law and morality” and “Drone pilots. Please refuse to fly. No one has to obey an immoral law.”

One of the ads, which includes images of dead and mutilated children, is being run only after 10 p.m., while the other spot airs from 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. daily. Both are posted on YouTube.

The commercials cost about $6,000, said Cres Vellucci, president of the Veterans Democratic Club of Sacramento County. The spots are running during popular shows on major cable channels, including AMC, CNN, Comedy Central, ESPN, Fox News, HGTV and a Comcast Bay Area sports channel.

“If you’re a fan of ‘Mad Men,’ Giants games or Fox News, there’s a good chance you’ll see it,” Vellucci said.

Drones are a controversial weapon in the U.S. war against terrorism in foreign countries, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen. Military officials defend using the aircraft to combat enemies and say that every effort is made to limit civilian casualties. Opponents contend the unmanned strikes result in the deaths of countless innocent people, including children.

Activists plan to run the anti-drone spots near operation centers throughout the United States. The campaign began last month in the Las Vegas TV market near Creech Air Force Base, which is home to Predator drones.

Nick Mottern, coordinator of KnowDrones.com, said this week that the ads are aimed directly at drone pilots, support workers and their families. He criticized President Barack Obama and Congress for supporting drone attacks and likened the ad campaign to Catholic Archbishop Oscar Romero’s call to Salvadoran soldiers in 1980 to lay down their arms during that country’s civil war.

“I think pilots and other people in these positions are under intense pressure to do this work,” said Mottern, a Navy veteran who served in the Vietnam War. “Our ads challenge them to stop compartmentalizing their work and to engage their consciences.”

In an email statement this week, Col. Douglas Lee of the 9th Reconnaissance Wing at Beale expressed support for the First Amendment rights of drone opponents “to freely express their opinions.” He added that using unarmed drones saves lives.

Vellucci, who was an Army information specialist in the Vietnam War, said most Americans don’t hear “the whole story” about drone attacks.

“We want to get the word out,” he said. “You hear that they are saving American lives, but you don’t really hear about the innocent women and children being targeted on the ground.”

Vellucci said the ads are scheduled to air on Comcast through April on base at Beale as well as in Yuba City, Marysville, Wheatland, Linda, Live Oak, Colusa and Olivehurst. Supporters hope to raise $4,000 to expand the ads to the Sacramento TV market, he said, and another $8,000 to $10,000 is being budgeted to buy spots within the next 30 days at two other drone operations centers in New York and New Mexico.

A French cable channel is drawing attention for its grilling of a lobbyist defending Monsanto. In the interview with Canal+, Patrick Moore repeatedly insists that glyphosate, the active ingredient in the popular pesticide Roundup, is safe to drink.

And then he repeatedly refuses to drink it, notes Raw Story. A sample of the exchange:

Moore: “You can drink a whole quart of it and it won’t hurt you.”

Interviewer: “You want to drink some? We have some here.”

Moore: “I’d be happy to, actually. Not really. But I know it wouldn’t hurt me.”

Interviewer: “If you say so, I have some.”

Moore: “I’m not stupid.”

When the interviewer presses him, Moore says that people regularly try to drink the stuff to commit suicide, but it never works because “it’s not dangerous to humans.” Pressed one last time to drink it, Moore says, “I’m not an idiot” and ends the interview.

Sites such as EcoWatch are reveling in it. Last week, a WHO study declared that the weed killer is “probably” carcinogenic, a conclusion that Monsanto adamantly denies.

Even though the FCC hasn’t yet ruled on the proposed merger between Comcast and Time Warner Cable, one group has already filed a lawsuit claiming at least $20 billion in damages from the way the two giants allegedly discriminate against black-owned media.

The complaint, filed in California on Friday, comes from the National Association of African-American Owned Media, which also filed a similar suit against AT&T and DirecTV in December.

This time, the plaintiff is not only targeting both Comcast and TWC — on the eve of the two companies merging to become what would be the largest pay television distributor in the United States — but also various African-American advocacy groups and MSNBC host Al Sharpton for allegedly facilitating discrimination.

The lawsuit figures to face many hurdles, from the sufficiency of its allegations to possibly the First Amendment, but for now it presents a larger portrait of a media company that isn’t carrying many fully owned black channels and the dangers of allowing it to grow bigger.

“We do not generally comment on pending litigation, but this complaint represents nothing more than a string of inflammatory, inaccurate, and unsupported allegations,” responds Comcast in a statement to The Hollywood Reporter.

Sharpton tells us that he “welcomes the opportunity to answer the frivolous allegations” and says he will be bringing counterclaims for defamation.

According to the lawsuit, Comcast and TWC “collectively spend approximately $25 billion annually for the licensing of pay-television channels and advertising of their products and services, yet 100% African American–owned media receives less than $3 million per year.”

At the time of Comcast’s 2010 acquisition of NBCUniversal, Comcast entered into memoranda of understanding with the NAACP, the National Urban League and the National Action Network, but the lawsuit says the voluntary diversity agreements are “a sham, undertaken to whitewash Comcast’s discriminatory business practices.”

The plaintiff objects that the only fully black-owned channel picked up by Comcast is the Africa Channel, and that entity is owned by former Comcast/NBCU exec Paula Madison, who “was directly involved in putting together the sham MOUs and obtaining government approval for the Comcast acquisition of NBC Universal, thus creating a serious conflict of interest.”

Other black channels are said to be “window dressing,” with black celebrities as “fronts” when they are “white-owned businesses” that are run by friends or family of Comcast executives.

The lawsuit goes on to say that Comcast made large cash “donations” to obtain support for its acquisition. The money includes $3.8 million to Sharpton and his National Action Network. The money, it’s charged, was meant to pay Sharpton to endorse the NBCU deal and divert attention away from discrimination. As for Sharpton’s MSNBC gig, the complaint says, “Despite the notoriously low ratings that Sharpton’s show generates, Comcast has allowed Sharpton to maintain his hosting position for more than three years in exchange for Sharpton’s continued public support for Comcast on issues of diversity.”

Sharpton objects that the budget for National Action Network is not even $4 million, and as for his MSNBC show, he believes he has the most successful show in the 6 p.m. hour at MSNBC, that “the numbers speak for themselves.” The lawsuit seems to count Sharpton’s reported $750,000 annual salary at MSNBC as part of the $3.8 million and leverages past criticism of the noted “civil rights leader” that’s rooted in him allegedly turning an eye and forgoing boycotts and protests on corporations upon receiving monetary contributions to the National Action Network.

As for support to the theory of discrimination in contracting, the lawsuit says Comcast has a “Jim Crow” process with respect to licensing black-owned channels, and that one Comcast exec stated, “We’re not trying to create any more Bob Johnsons,” referring to the founder of Black Entertainment Television.

The NAAAOM is suing along with Entertainment Studios Networks, which was founded by Byron Allen and now has a television operation with stations like Justice Central that reach 7.5 million consumers through deals with smaller pay TV distributors.

Representing the plaintiffs are Louis “Skip” Miller at Miller Barondess. The attorney has been a mainstay for many years on The Hollywood Reporter‘s list of the 100 most powerful lawyers in the entertainment industry. Besides representing clients including Rod Stewart, Steven Tyler, Elton John and Bob Dylan, he also defended the city of Los Angeles in the Rodney King civil rights case.

A Comcast spokesperson responds, “We are proud of our outstanding record supporting and fostering diverse programming, including programming from African-Americans”

Al Sharpton is all about the Benjamins, a daughter of police chokehold victim Eric Garner claims in a bombshell videotape.

Erica Snipes tees off on the reverend as interested primarily in money during a conversation secretly recorded by controversial conservative activist James O’Keefe’s group, Project Veritas.

One of O’Keefe’s investigators with a hidden camera posed as a Garner supporter during a protest last month at the St. George Ferry Terminal on Staten Island.

“You think Al Sharpton is kind of like a crook in a sense?” the investigator is heard asking Garner’s oldest daughter.

“He’s about this,” Snipes replies, rubbing her fingers together.

“He’s about money with you?” the undercover asks.

“Yeah,” Snipes responds.

Snipes, 24, also complained that the Staten Island director of Sharpton’s National Action Network, Cynthia Davis, scolded her for handing out street fliers about her father’s case that did not include NAN’s logo.

“She started attacking me. ‘Oh, I see that you got this flier out, how come you didn’t add the logo?’ ’’ Snipes said.

The undercover then asks, “They want their logo on your fliers?”

“Instead of me, he wants his face in front,” Snipes says, referring to Sharpton

“But it’s not about them, it’s about your dad,” the undercover says.

“Exactly,” Snipes responds.

“Al Sharpton paid for the funeral. She’s trying to make me feel like I owe them,” she adds.

In an interview with The Post on Monday night, Snipes denied that she had accused Sharpton of being a money-grubber.

“No, I didn’t say that I think Al Sharpton is all about the money,” she said.

‘Al Sharpton paid for the funeral. [NAN Director Cynthia Davis is] trying to make me feel like I owe them.’

– Erica Snipes

But she stood by her criticism of Davis, the NAN director, who she claimed tried to block her from attending a protest at the Staten Island Museum against mass incarceration.

Sharpton on Monday night accused Project Veritas of “exploiting” Snipes and a dispute within the Garner family.

“They’re splicing and dicing stuff together. It was a distortion. Erica is a sincere victim. She was not trying to infer anything with me,” Sharpton said of the secret recording.

Sharpton said the premise of the criticism is flat wrong. He said NAN helps families, including paying for funerals, and does not take money from them. He said Snipes’ sister, Emerald, now works for NAN.

Moreover, he said, NAN organizes rallies after receiving legal permits from the city and therefore requests that its logo be put on fliers for events it sponsors.

In the video, Sharpton is also criticized by leaders and supporters involved in the Michael Brown police shooting case in Ferguson, Mo., and the Trayvon Martin shooting in Florida, according to the Project Veritas videotapes.

Jean Petrus, a Brooklyn businessman who attended a recent Trayvon Martin Foundation fundraiser in Florida, is also seen criticizing Sharpton in the secretly taped video.

“He knows how to make money and get money. They’re shakedown guys to me. You know, let’s call it what it is, they’re shakedown,” he says in the video.

“To some degree, he sort of incites people for the wrong reason,” the bishop says. “I’m in the gathering. He got them all fired up. But I just sense this is not the way you want to go.”

Sharpton dismissed the criticism, saying he went to Ferguson at the request of Brown’s family.

“I condemned the violence in Ferguson,” he said.

The Post attempted to contact all the subjects in the Veritas video documentary. Two responded.

Lawyer Darryl Parks, who is involved with the Trayvon Martin Foundation, said “there may be a little truth in that” when asked in a secret recording whether Sharpton is “all about his money.”

Parks on Monday night told The Post that he was “totally misconstrued” by a woman who misrepresented herself as a donor willing to give $50,000 to the foundation. He said it was a lengthy interview taken out of context.

“This is operating under false disguise. It’s nothing but hogwash,” said Parks, who stressed that he supports Sharpton.

Another subject, Vivian Dudley of One Outreach Ministry in Ferguson, said in the video that she was “not quite sure what Al Sharpton did” when he visited there following Brown’s death. She confirmed that two people identifying themselves as documentarians openly interviewed her.

“They asked me about Sharpton. I don’t have anything bad to say about anybody,” Dudley said Monday night.

Other subjects did not respond or could not be reached for comment.

The National Action Network issued a statement Tuesday on behalf of Eric Garner’s mother, Gwen Carr, and widow, Esaw Garner.

“Today’s NY Post front page story is deeply misleading about the relationship between our family, National Action Network, and Rev. Al Sharpton.

“As the mother and head of the estate of Eric Garner, and the widow of Eric Garner, let us be clear: We reached out and asked for help and assistance from Rev. Al Sharpton and National Action Network in the wake of Eric’s death. National Action Network and Rev. Al Sharpton have honored all of our requests, including covering the expenses of Eric’s funeral. We believe that their involvement is solely based on their commitment for justice for Eric and our family. It is National Action Network’s policy that they do not accept monies or even reimbursement from victim’s families.

“Erica made it clear in this NY Post article that the way the interview was conducted was extremely deceptive and her comments were taken out of context.

“We appreciate the work that National Action and Rev. Sharpton has done and continues to do for our family. The best way to continue to seek justice and honor Eric is through peaceful demonstrations, including by attending this Saturday’s rally with Rev. Sharpton at National Action Network.”

Boston’s mainstream media has delivered its verdict on the allegations against marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev: he’s so guilty, there’s no need to used the word alleged anymore.

If there were any doubt that Boston’s media had a bias in the case, several of the city’s media pundits and one of its journalism professors have decisively put that question to rest. The panelists on WGBH’s “Beat the Press” were shameless in discarding any pretense of unbiased, neutral reporting.

The use of the word, “alleged” to identify a suspect who has not been convicted is a long-established practice of media ethics. It’s a standard which acknowledges that only properly-held trial can assign guilt. Yet using “alleged” or “accused” for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is unnecessary,” according to the pundits on “Beat the Press”

“In the case of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, I wouldn’t have a big problem if somebody simply described him as ‘The Boston Bomber’ because, the evidence is overwhelming to the point (that) there is virtually no other side to this,” said Northeastern journalism Professor Dan Kennedy.

Alleged Impartiality

The Boston Globe’s Dante Ramos went one step further, arguing that the use of “alleged” or “allegedly” is just lip service in this case. The words are “the tribute that we pay to the idea of innocent until proven guilty. There’s no way of putting these facts together in a way that he’s not one of the perpetrators.”

But, given the high number of sealed motions, the dubious hospital bed confession, the restrictions placed on the defendant and his attorneys that have left him incommunicado, is Tsarnaev’s guilt is a foregone conclusion?

Revealing South Africa’s “secret correspondence with the US intelligence agency, the CIA, Britain’s MI6, Israel’s Mossad, Russia’s FSB and Iran’s operatives, as well as dozens of other services from Asia to the Middle East and Africa.”

Documents indicate “(t)he respective NSA-ISNU and GCHQ bilateral relationships had gotten to the point that each participant recognized the need for the trilateral engagement to advance this specific topic.”

“The trilateral relationship is limited to the topic of (word redated) and will serve as a proof of concept of this kind of engagement.”

GCHQ “long advocated that it work with NSA and ISNU in a trilateral arrangement to prosecute the Iranian target.”

NSA’s signals intelligence chief “opposed…such a blanket arrangement, and this specific trilateral should not be interpreted as a broad change of approach.”

“In other areas, NSA and CCHQ have agreed to continue to share information gleaned from the respective bilateral relationships with ISNU.”

Documents revealed show US/UK intelligence successes against Iran.

Saying “NSA has successfully worked multiple high-priority surges with GCHQ (during) the storming of the British Embassy in Tehran…”

“Iran’s discovery of computer network exploitation tools on their networks in 2012 and 2013; and support to policymakers during the multiple rounds of P5 plus 1 negotiation on Iran’s nuclear program.”

NSA’s so-called emergency plan in case of crisis conditions with Iran is coordinated with other US spy agencies and Pentagon officials.

“We are obviously adamant not to have ISIS or umbrellas for them in Palestine.”

“Those who have been trying to create the ISIS phenomenon are Israel and Hamas given that the Muslim Brotherhood movement is the incubator which created al-Qaida, ISIS, the Nusra Front and other Jihadist and Takfiri organizations.”

“The Israeli occupation is interested in creating chaos in Palestine…to tell the world that Palestinians do not deserve to have a state.”

He seeks congressional support against rapprochement with Iran. He rejects compromise. He wants hardline US policies remaining unchanged.

“Media reports and public comments by senior current and former officials have frequently indicated dissent from within Israel’s security services over Netanyahu’s alarmist messaging on Iran,” said Al Jazeera.

However, the (leaked) document (it got) makes clear that the Mossad’s formal assessment of Iran’s nuclear capacity and intentions differs from the scenario outlined by the prime minister at the UN” – and numerous other times.

The cable was sent to South Africa’s State Security Agency (SSA) shortly after Netanyahu’s September 2012 address.

In March 2012, former Mossad chief Meir Dagan warned against overstating an Iranian threat – heading Israel toward possible war with Tehran.

At the time, he called attacking Iran a “stupid idea (before) exploring all other approaches” to resolve differences between both countries.

In October 2012, Mossad estimated Iran had 100 kilograms of uranium enriched to a 20% level.

In 2013, its stockpile increased. Then was “neutralise(d)” or “destroyed” following P5+1 talks.

“We will continue the negotiations as long as there is a language of respect,” he said.

“(B)ut we will surely leave the table if the (bullying) approach is extended to the negotiating table.”

His comments followed John Kerry saying Obama “is fully prepared to stop these talks if he feels that they’re not being met with the kind of productive decision-making necessary to prove that a program is in fact peaceful.”

“Both the US and other P5+1 (countries) have experienced that political and media pressures will never make the Islamic Republic of Iran change it methods, demands and stances in the negotiations,” Araqchi stressed.

“Summing up the discussions, we cannot claim that progress has been made…We still have differences, but the negotiating sides are seriously and resolutely following up the negotiations to reach a solution although they have not achieved comprehensive solutions over key issues.”

Talks continue next Monday in Geneva. Whether agreement is possible remains to be seen.

Given decades of US hostility, it takes a great leap of faith to believe normalizing relations with Iran will occur any time soon.

Not as long as enormous Israeli Lobby pressure keeps Congress from accepting it.

After twelve years, Brian Williams is coming clean, admitting the helicopter he traveled in during NBC’s coverage of the 2003 Iraq invasion never once came under fire, despite Williams’ story to the contrary.

On Jan. 30, NBC Nightly News posted a video of Williams to Facebook, in which Williams recounts the story during a news segment. Williams references “a terrible moment a dozen years back during the invasion of Iraq, when the helicopter we were traveling in was forced down after being hit by an RPG.”

A user by the name of Lance Reynolds, who purported to have served in Iraq during the incident in question, subsequently commented on the video, writing, “Sorry dude, I don’t remember you being on my aircraft.”

Reynolds added, “I do remember you walking up about an hour after we had landed to ask me what had happened. Then I remember you guys taking back off in a different flight of Chinooks from another unit and heading to Kuwait to report your ‘war story’ to the Nightly News.”

Willams responded to the comment via his verified account, writing, “To Joseph, Lance, Jonathan, Pate, Michael and all those who have posted: You are absolutely right and I was wrong.

“In fact, I spent much of the weekend thinking I’d gone crazy. I feel terrible about making this mistake, especially since I found my OWN WRITING about the incident from back in ’08, and I was indeed on the Chinook behind the bird that took the RPG in the tail housing just above the ramp.

“Because I have no desire to fictionalize my experience (we all saw it happened the first time) and no need to dramatize events as they actually happened, I think the constant viewing of the video showing us inspecting the impact area — and the fog of memory over 12 years — made me conflate the two, and I apologize.

“I certainly remember the armored mech platoon, meeting Capt. Eric Nye and of course Tim Terpak. Shortly after they arrived, so did the Orange Crush sandstorm, making virtually all outdoor functions impossible. I honestly don’t remember which of the three choppers Gen. Downing and I slept in, but we spent two nights on the stowable web bench seats in one of the three birds.

“Later in the invasion when Gen. Downing and I reached Baghdad, I remember searching the parade grounds for Tim’s Bradley to no avail. My attempt to pay tribute to CSM Terpak was to honor his 23+ years in service to our nation, and it had been 12 years since I saw him.

“The ultimate irony is: In writing up the synopsis of the 2 nights and 3 days I spent with him in the desert, I managed to switch aircraft. Nobody’s trying to steal anyone’s valor. Quite the contrary: I was and remain a civilian journalist covering the stories of those who volunteered for duty. This was simply an attempt to thank Tim, our military and Veterans everywhere — those who have served while I did not.”

Vaccination debate spills over into 2016 White House race

The roiling national debate over vaccinations has spilled over into the 2016 presidential race, as potential candidates clash over whether a measles outbreak underscores the need for strict vaccination policies.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, both potential Republican candidates, waded into the debate on Monday, saying parents should have a say in whether to vaccinate their kids. The remarks were not a departure from previously stated positions, but in light of the current measles outbreak, they drew widespread attention — and criticism.

The Centers for Disease Control and (Creation) Prevention is reporting 102 confirmed measles cases spread across 14 states, which follows last year’s record outbreak in which 644 cases were diagnosed across 27 states — the largest outbreak since the virus was declared eliminated in 2000.

On Tuesday, Ben Carson, a neurosurgeon and conservative advocate who is considering a White House run, weighed in on the other side. While saying there are “exceptional situations” that should be heard and he strongly believes in individual rights, Carson said, “I also recognize that public health and public safety are extremely important in our society.”

He said in a statement: “Certain communicable diseases have been largely eradicated by immunization policies in this country and we should not allow those diseases to return by foregoing safe immunization programs, for philosophical, religious or other reasons when we have the means to eradicate them.”

The statement puts some distance between Carson, and Christie and Paul.

Christie, who spoke Monday after making a tour of a biomedical research lab in Cambridge, England, said that he and his wife had vaccinated their children. However, the governor added, “I also understand that parents need to have some measure of choice in things as well. So that’s the balance that the government has to decide.”

Later Monday, Paul said in a radio interview that he believed most vaccines should be voluntary.

“I have heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking, normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines,” Paul, an eye doctor, said in a subsequent interview while suggesting vaccines were “a good thing.” ”But I think the parents should have some input. The state doesn’t own your children.”

Both men’s staffs later sent out statements clarifying their remarks. Christie’s spokesman said the governor believed that “with a disease like measles there is no question kids should be vaccinated.” The statement from Paul’s office pointed out that the senator’s children have all been vaccinated and added that Paul “believes that vaccines have saved lives, and should be administered to children.

Hillary Clinton, the leading likely Democratic contender for the party nomination in 2016, couldn’t resist taking a dig at the GOP hopefuls on Twitter.

“The science is clear: The earth is round, the sky is blue, and #vaccineswork. Let’s protect all our kids. #GrandmothersKnowBest.”

Medical experts and political consultants from both sides joined in the criticism.

“When you see educated people or elected officials giving credence to things that have been completely debunked, an idea that’s been shown to be responsible for multiple measles and pertussis outbreaks in recent years, it’s very concerning,” Amesh Adalja, an an infectious-disease physician at the Center for Health Security at the University of Pittsburgh, told The Washington Post.

GOP operative Rick Wilson told the paper that he thought Christie’s remarks could have been a clumsy play to win over conservative voters suspicious of government mandates.

“There’s only one of two options,” Wilson said of Christie. “Either he’s so tone-deaf that he doesn’t understand why saying this is bad for him, or this is a considered political strategy. And that would be even more troubling.”

In fact, Christie pledged to fight for greater parental involvement in vaccination decisions during his first campaign for New Jersey governor in 2009.

All states now require children to get certain vaccinations to enroll in school, although California and New Jersey are among 20 states that let parents opt out by obtaining a waiver. Parents in New Jersey seeking such a waiver for medical reasons must submit a written statement from their doctor or registered nurse.

The American Academy of Pediatrics strongly urges parents to get their children vaccinated against measles and other childhood diseases. The New Jersey health department’s guidelines on vaccines say that objections “based on grounds which are not medical or religious in nature and which are of a philosophical, moral, secular, or more general nature continue to be unacceptable.”

Concerns about autism and vaccinations are often traced to a 1998 study in the British journal Lancet. While the research was later discredited and retracted by the journal, legions of parents abandoned the vaccine, leading to a resurgence of measles in Western countries where it had been mostly stamped out. Last year, there were more than 4,100 cases in Europe, according to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control.

Measles is a highly contagious disease that spreads through the air, with symptoms that include fever, runny nose and a blotchy rash. The measles-mumps-rubella vaccine is 97 percent effective at preventing measles, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“Choosing not to vaccinate your child could also endanger the health of other children in your community,” CDC director Tom Frieden said Monday.

New Jersey requires the vaccine for children between 12 months and 15 months old, and then a second dose between ages 4 and 6. Such mandated vaccinations are a point of irritation among some conservatives, notable in the early voting state of Iowa, where Christian home-school advocates constitute an influential bloc of voters who take part in the Republican presidential caucuses.

Barb Heki, a leader in Iowa’s home-school advocacy network, said such parents “adhere to the idea that it’s the parents’ right to make the decision on vaccinations.

“More important than a candidate’s stance on vaccinations, I’m more concerned for parents’ rights to make decisions about their own children, period,” she said. “That’s paramount.”

Louise Kuo Habakus, a radio host who runs a nonprofit group opposed to state-required vaccinations, said she helped arrange a meeting between parents and Christie on the issue in 2009 and saluted him for standing up for the “rights of parents to direct the health, welfare and upbringing of their children.”

“He’s been absolutely constant and I believe courageous and principled on this issue,” she said.

———————-

The FOX “news” show Kelly Files w/ MeGyn Kelly was merciless on Rand Paul over this last night – (No clip)

Ex-Fox producer kills himself outside NYC headquarters – Police | 26 Jan 2015 | Police say a former Fox news television producer in Texas has shot himself to death outside company headquarters in midtown Manhattan. Forty-one-year-old Philip Perea died after the shooting at about 9 a.m. Monday outside News Corp. Authorities say Perea had been handing out fliers about Fox saying the company destroyed his career shortly before he shot himself outside the building that houses Fox News, the New York Post and The Wall Street Journal.

Video Posted by Philip Perea Before his death… Points to how FOX Austin was afraid of losing access to the APD Chief, and thus fired Perea. Quite revealing if true.

He’s seemingly everywhere at once in Austin and became such a fixture in the community that some officers nicknamed him the “Rock Star.”

Acevedo still enjoys catching the bad guys. He regularly rides out in a patrol car and has made about 20 arrests since he became chief in the state’s capital in 2007.

In joining the California Highway Patrol in 1986, the Cuban-born Acevedo followed in the footsteps of his late father, who patrolled the streets of Havana before the family fled to the U.S. in the late 1960s. Acevedo worked his way up to the highest rungs of CHP, earning plaudits for combating gang violence in Los Angeles and respect for his willingness to take on police corruption.

Near the end of his highway patrol career, he ran into a rocky patch when a former girlfriend filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against him and the highway patrol. A federal judge dismissed the allegation of sexual harassment.

Acevedo also won a $1 million whistle-blower settlement against the highway patrol after complaining that he faced retaliation for, among other things, exposing improper conduct by top officials, including pension irregularities.

Having dealt with Chief Assinvader myself, many times… (yes I called this name to his face, and on my Austin TV Show…) I can confirm that he actually IS a Bafoon, and a Lunatic. Power mad, and slicker than a wall street junk bond salesman.– Jack Blood